On the unique calculator that Jeremy Corbyn uses, there must be a
sequence of numbers – somewhere between meltdown and minimal
respectability - that most psephologists won’t recognise. This is where
‘victory’ in the general election resides. Not the win that would take Labour
into Number 10, but the result that will keep Corbyn as Labour’s leader – and
finally bury his party as an electable political entity.

Labour’s expectations going into the general election campaign were so
low that simply avoiding a disaster, or a cataclysmic collapse, was seen as a
reason to be cheerful. For those of us struggling with Corbyn’s election as
leader, and in almost-permanent mourning over the attritional weekly loss of
credibility, the election was a justifiable period to contemplate hiding behind
the sofa.

The last six weeks merited a retreat into petitionary prayer, a
begging-bowl plea even, for the electoral arithmetic to deliver a simultaneous
Labour wipe-out and decorous recovery. But that kind of fantasy math
doesn’t exist, even in the minds of quantum physicists.

Until Theresa May delivered the Conservatives’ stillborn manifesto and
the noise level surrounding her claimed leadership talents began drowning out
all talk of an in-the-bag landslide, the Corbyn campaign had looked predictably
lame. Jeremy as Prime Minister was either an amusing what-if, or a passing
nightmare.

However, the abject failure to sell May as “strong and stable”,
alongside the misjudgement that her authority was unassailable, handed Corbyn
an unexpected opportunity. When May began to look more like a fabricated fraud
than Thatcher mark II, Corbyn’s so-called authenticity, which gives his
followers reasons to believe, was now sold as the game-changing magic to make
2017 the year of revolution.

May’s wooden and out-of-place performances in a personality-led
campaign, handed Corbyn the gift of media focus. His excruciatingly weak
performances at PMQs, the inept, organisational chaos surrounding his
leadership, his inability to engender any common-cause between the hard-left
and the pragmatic centre of his party, suddenly gave way to a calmer, softer,
Corbyn-in-the-spotlight.

The vacuum created by May’s monotony and the Liberal Democrats’ failure
to be taken seriously, turned Corbyn into the 2017 election’s centre-stage
politician. From a hidden leader, edited out of most Labour campaign leaflets,
and dismissed in doorstep canvassing as a temporary phenomenon unlikely to get
in the way much longer, Corbyn – and Labour’s proto-Marxist manifesto –
began to be taken seriously. His back-to-the-future socialist agenda, as untailored
and unchanged as Michael Foot’s donkey jacket, was now an outed celebration of
an alternative UK.

Barely concealed pork barrel give-aways were presented as a planned
festival of Keynesian revivalism and state-planned growth. Corbyn has
contradictions over the IRA, there are issues over his claimed peace-making in
terrorist circles and his abhorrence of the nuclear deterrent remains. The cost
of large-scale re-nationalisation, his perceived weakness over anti-Semitism,
and – most important of all – the widespread assumption that he is simply an
accident, an incompetent socialist relic out of his depth, have all had to be
revised as opinion polls narrowed.Initially branded a ticket to the Dignitas clinic, the manifesto morphed
from an uncosted wish-list of resurgent state economic power, to something that
sounded as politically obvious as ‘Make America Great Again.’

When the gap between Labour and the Conservatives is 20 points, and a
landslide is forecast, it is valid to assume that Corbyn is the root cause of the
mess. But when the numbers shrink to nine, to seven, to five, to three, and
when another coalition becomes the subject of serious debates, Jeremy Corbyn is
no longer a hapless, hopeless clown prince, but the left’s saviour-elect a
heartbeat away from Number 10.

So even if Labour lose, and perhaps lose badly, does Corbyn’s decent
electoral performance and the way he seemed to revive hopes of another Labour
government, mean he should be given another chance? Did his revival of a
hard-core distributist agenda, whether it translates into votes or not, mean
Corbyn has a right to remain at the helm of Labour? No. Absolutely no.

Leave aside the project fear analysts who claim a Labour victory would
mean a surge in public borrowing, a run on the pound, a plunge in the value of the
UK’s global market share, the cost of the UK’s borrowing reaching record
heights, an immediate hike in interest rates, and any UK Brexit deal left to
the mercy of Brussels’ negotiators. That scaremongering – and we have heard it
before when the Conservatives are in danger of losing (remember the poster of
Tony Blair’s demon eyes) – is simply part of May’s campaign.

Instead, we should ask how Corbyn got to where he is. It took
sympathetic votes from Labour MPs to get him on to the post-Miliband leadership
ballot. He was there supposedly to widen the debate. It was a favour to the
left.

In that contest, Corbyn was initially an in-house joke for the
parliamentary party. Though when he won, it left them powerless in Westminster.
The same trick is being played out again with the widespread appeal that Corbyn
cannot win, so Labour voters should remain loyal and limit the damage.

Underpinning this covert appeal is the assumption that Labour still
remains a party capable of government, capable of being elected at a future
date, as long as Corbyn or John McDonnell or Diane Abbott and others, are no
longer in control. For those Labour supporters who have tolerated Corbyn, but
flirted with the prospect of taking their vote elsewhere, his adequate
performance during the election may have made a difference. This however
suggests the weight of Labour’s vote should not vindicate the continuance of
the Corbyn regime.

Even if Labour are left with shrunken numbers on the Opposition benches,
Corbyn and McDonnell will, regardless, still see the validity of running a
class war, their signature policy, from Westminster. A reduction in
Labour MPs matters little if this is the sole objective.

The prognosis for Labour’s survival could be bleak. Corbynism is a
terminal affliction that Labour cannot recover from. A six-week campaign has
not a redesigned or relaunched Corbyn’s claim to resurrect state socialism.
When he returns to the Commons, Labour will still have the same problems any
organisation has when it is run by an ideologically restricted incompetent.

Party activists may not care. They will cheer and will re-elect him should
there be another leadership contest. The parliamentary party will have a
different view. And there is no reconciliation there to suggest a constructive
peace will break out. The result? For Labour – business as usual, well away
from government. For the Tories? A bit of May – then a new leader to fight
2022.

Even if Corbyn marginally improves the percentage success of Ed Miliband
in 2015, or just falls short, he should go. The left could claim the
equivalence of sainthood and insist he changed the future. The centre would
have to accept some good was done, even it meant improved morale.

Labour’s future cannot be left to depend on a relic, who, for a brief
few weeks, performed beyond expectations. That isn’t enough. For the benefit of
the next generation of Labour politicians who should want more than the
wilderness of endless opposition, Corbyn and whatever ‘ism’ he stood for,
should return to the backbenches – quickly.

About the author

James Cusick is editor of openMedia at openDemocracy and a former political correspondent at The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. As an experienced member of the lobby, he has previously worked at The Sunday Times and the BBC.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.